SRv6 Operations
charter-ietf-srv6ops-01

Thanks for creating this OPS WG, it can only help to deploy even more IETF technologies.

Some quick comments in order to improve the charter itself.

The use of "Mission" seems a little too military, can we simply say "objective" or "charter" ?

`deploying and managing Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6) networks` is a little redundant/repetitive with the first statement `The Segment Routing (SR) instantiation on the IPv6 data plane is known as SRv6.` Suggest to keep only the first sentence.

I find `Gathering input from network operators` a little limiting as this OPS WG could also be use to exchange tips & tricks among operators, i.e., acting as a forum.

` The chairs of the SRv6OPS WG will consult with the Area Director (AD)` which AD ? The SRv6OPS AD ? I am not even sure whether this step is required, perhaps a wording such "Operators feedback about under-development should rather be directly be addressed to the relevant WG (e.g., SPRING)."

I have rarely seen `assurance` used alone, suggest using "service assurance".

Unsure whether the very long list of related WG is interesting or useful.

** Per the Mission section, the following text seem to be repetitive.

==[ snip ]==
* Gathering input from network operators to identify operational issues in SRv6 networks.
* Developing operational guidelines to ensure secure, reliable, efficient, and scalable SRv6 network operations.
* Identifying and resolving operational challenges encountered during SRv6 deployments.
==[ snip ]==

Bullet 1 says the WG will gather input on “operational issues”.  Bullet 3 also says “operational challenges” will be identified.  Is there a difference between operational issues and challenges?

Bullet 2 says that the WG will develop “operational guidelines”.  Is that the same as the “resolving operational challenges” per bullet 3?

** Per the Scope section:

==[ snip ]==
… provide deployment guidance, address operational issues, identify gaps, and explore potential operational experiments.
==[ snip ]==

This text appears to be repetitive to the three bullet points in the previous section except for operational experiments.

What does it mean for a WG to conduct operational experiments?  What is the artifact of this work?  The current charter text says only information documents will be published.

** Per the Scope section:
==[ snip ]==
Operational Issues and Requirements: Addressing IPv6 address planning for SRv6 Segment Identifiers (SIDs), protection, inter-domain, and interworking with other technologies. The requirements may not be published as RFCs but may be maintained in draft form or in a collaborative Working Group space.
==[ snip ]==

Who is the WG publishing requirements for?  Requirements are not mentioned in the Mission section.  I also don’t see any mention of them in the deliverables.

(Editorial) For clarity, I recommend rewording the second sentence to read: “The WG may choose not to publish requirements as an RFC, but maintain them in a draft form or in a collaborative WG space.” 

** Per the Key Deliverables section:

==[ snip ]==
Documenting SRv6 deployment experiences, including different deployment scenarios (metro, core, and enterprise networks), scalability, and inter-domain implementations.
==[ snip ]==

The above bullet point seems to be documenting deployment experience.  Is that the same as the “operational issues” and “deployment scenarios” in the Scope section and “gathering input from network operators” in the Mission section?  I ask because in those two other sections, the context was to identify operational issues.  The text here seems to be about documenting operations regardless of whether there are issues.

** Please provide formal milestones.

# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-srv6ops-00-03
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

* "Handling Ballot Positions":
  - https://ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/

## Comments

* It's nice that it's scoped to Informational documents, but should we leave
  open the possibility that an operations group might want to produce a BCP?

I support Erik Kline's comment.